Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time Review | PlayStation LifeStyle

PSLS: For the most part, Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time is successful. It delivers a competent and varied platforming experience that will appeal to fans of the franchise. That said, don’t expect an earth-shatteringly new or innovative game. Thieves in Time plays it extremely safe and doesn’t veer too far from the platforming norm. If you’re partial to the Sly universe, you’ll find plenty to love, but those who aren’t die-hard fans will likely see through the game’s skin-deep charm.

Also remember it is 2 games for only $40, which pardon the pun a definite steal.

Anyways about the review the negatives minus the one about gimmicky controls/camera feel like nitpicks to me personally. How come when some games stay true to the formula they are sometimes regarded as negatives now? I sometimes can't grasp the thinking when it comes to stuff like this.

"How come when some games stay true to the formula they are sometimes regarded as negatives now?"

Simple answer to a simple question. Because certain games stay true to their formula, they will always cater to that niche fanbase that made the franchise popular in the first place. The lack of change, while good for pre-existing fans of the game, does little to promote new fans of the franchise.

Therefore, if a game can only appeal to a niche audience, no one in good conscience can give it a "superb" recommendation to all gamers, because chances are that it won't appeal to most.

A 6.5 score for the rest of the world likely translates to an 8.5 for a Sly fan. Either way, if you know your already getting the game..the score shouldn't matter to you.

Look Logicwins you have some great points sometimes but i have to disagree with you here.

I find what you are saying hard to swallow honestly. It has worked for Mario, God of War, Call of Duty & these games aren't considered niche at all. Their simple gameplay dynamics are what makes fans come back to these game time & time again. Change it too much & they are no longer the same game.

All i am saying is that reviews shouldn't take a game staying true to its roots as a negative & knock the game for it. Why can't a mechanic that has worked well in 3 games all of a sudden not work in 2013? My mind is sometimes flabbergasted by what some of these reviewers come up with as excuses at times.

"Therefore, if a game can only appeal to a niche audience, no one in good conscience can give it a "superb" recommendation to all gamers, because chances are that it won't appeal to most."

This is a horrible statement. How can you give so much credence with "mainstream" titles in comparison to the "niche"? I thought the game should be judged by it's merits and so you use such strawman to give validity to reviewers in favor of "mainstream"titles. This is review hijacking at it's worst and to support such actions is disgraceful.

By your "logic" Dark Souls and Demon's souls should get extremely low scores because - according to you - cannot be recommended to ALL gamers because chances are it won't appeal to most. Your ideal review scenario would have all the dumbed down, COD-fied AAA-backing titles being GOTY candidates since each of them are CATERED to the mainstream gamer.

Ignore it.Only PlayStation games get penalized for sticking with tried and true formulas.In their case that is called monotony and sameness.For Halo and Mario that is called being classic and 'if it ain't broken don't fix it'.And any complaints about it being the same game falls on deaf ears.

Yeah somehow I don't see PLAYSTATION lifestyle giving Halo and Mario great scores for sticking to their formulas. In fact I don't see PLAYSTATION Lifestyle giving Halo and Mario any scores. . .for some strange reason.

Obviously I haven't played it yet but it sounds like it deserves a little more if the only major complaint is that it sticks too close to the formula people know and love from the old games. Not that I'm dismissing that as a complaint. Considering we quite recently got a package of three full Sly games that don't even look dated thanks to how well the cartoony art style lends itself to HD, getting one more Sly game on another disc that just looks a little better doesn't seem so exciting comparatively. Still though, it's another effing Sly Cooper game. How could anyone not buy it?

So if providing Sly Cooper fans with what they want merits a 6.5 (so that's worth a 3.5 point pinch from the top of the scale), a 6.5 it is. I don't expect all reviews to be this brash though. Some people would welcome a vibrant and fun platformer like Sly with open arms and much praise for even bothering to show the genre some love - that's where people like myself come in.

And he really does love the Sly games. I watched a Sessler's Soapbox quite a while back where he was singing Sly's praises when the HD collection came out, saying how the games were just as good now as they were in the past.

I'm still gonna buy it (gotta add that 4th Sly platinum trophy), but my expectations have been adjusted so as not to feel let down if it's not as good as previous entries.

That's not really true, the second changed quite a bit from the first. After that, the 3rd was very much like the 2nd with less back and forth to the HQ, less collectibles (which I loved it for because I'm sick of collecting heavy platformers) and the rocket wheelchair.

Personally, I think I'd enjoy the game but I can sort of see why people would expect more. The AI was always a bit crude and some core gameplay concept could be fleshed out a bit more. It's a family game at heart so the basic stealth wasn't that bad, but it looks like it's now the 3rd straight game without any evolution. It's a bit like Ratchet, God of War, Uncharted. It's great for a couple of games but it doesn't really evolve. If COD and Assassin's Creed get bashed for not evolving, why not Sly?

I agree that Sly seems to have taken more of a hit ratings wise than AC or COD, but it's also a much simpler experience, so the lack of evolution after such a long pause may be more palpable.

It has been over 10 years since playing Sly 1 but nothing anywhere in the series struck me as "evolved gameplay" or "revolutionary game mechanics" it all felt and played like, well, Sly Cooper!

Pressing circle to land on a object has been present the ENTIRE series correct? Then why does this reviewer complain about it now? Same with the sly humor.

He must of wanted Sly to "Evolve" and add a futuristic magnetic tether or super rocket boots to fly to the top of a building instead of having to jump and(Gasp!) press circle. Not me. I wanted a classic Sly game.

Yes, much like Gears of War, Ratchet, God of War and Uncharted. We all know what type of gameplay and characters to expect. That's why we play them.

Game Franchises that have a core gameplay associated and expected of them do well as long as you have new enemies, environments and replay value, just ask Mario and COD.

I don't recall the last one of those getting a 6/10 for sticking to the same 'ol formula ;)

Way to give the game an average score for giving the fans what they want instead of changing what made the series great to appeal to a wider audience. I couldn't happier that Sanzaru stayed true to the formula.